Thorburn, The Mythical Interp of the Gospels

[DCHindley]

Hey DC: I have a copy in Word Document of a series of articles published in 1907 on Mystic Christianity authored by Yogi Ramacharaka. Though I have only skimmed over it as I myself am gathering different authors in an effort to see how the debates went on this subject in later times. I share this with you based on your comment

The person who browses the web encounters them but has not the faintest idea where they came from, yet still confidently asserts them as facts.

is such a true statement. The series of articles may help you in seeing some of what Thorburn had encountered in his time.

Thanks for that. Much of what circulates on the web is from undocumented sources. Even when the source works are provided, they often lack even the most basic publication details. Even the web page I cited that discussed astronomical issues related to the dating of the symbolism contained in the Nut diagrams in the Dendra tomb, may have been influenced by Theosophy.

One has to ask: "Is the idea expressed a cutting edge new one or something from 19th century?" Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE a lot of 19th and early 20th century scholarship, but I have to agree with Schweitzer who implied that many critics, even the most brilliant, tend to see reflections of themselves in the subjects of their inquiry. Modern critics often recycle this older scholarship, pretending that they have sharpened the focus of the older inquiry, but conclude exactly the same things, and then professional critics criticize folks like me for not worshiping the modern works as new and cutting edge. The value of modern scholarship in these cases is restricted to incorporating evidence developed in the interim into the older interpretive frameworks.

Now there certainly are cases where so much new evidence has turned up that a complete revaluation of older positions is absolutely necessary, for example the Dead Sea Scrolls or even the Nag Hammadi library. But even then, there is SO much old school opposition to the interpretations of this new data offered by critics that the DSS have virtually been negated as a source for pre 1st century Judaic thought (they are the musings of a marginal sect who could not have been influential enough to affect Christianity or popular Judaish thought, GOD FORBID!), and there are still critics who want to believe that Gnostic thought is entirely formed in reaction to orthodox Christianity (e.g., Simone Petrement, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, 1993).

DCH

[Blood]

Introduction

[xi] The subject of this treatise, "The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels," as it may be termed, is, it should be widely known, nothing more nor less than the theory that our present four canonical Gospels are in no sense whatever what we nowadays mean by the term "historical documents." This is, in truth, a most serious proposition to fling down before the world after close upon nineteen centuries of Christian teaching which has been throughout based upon the contrary affirmation. For, if any such theory be a true one, and can be so established to the satisfaction not only of scholars but to that of the world at large, then the documents referred to must be in effect probably nothing more than a mere congeries of ancient nature-myths, and their Central Figure also can only be an embodiment of one or more [xii] of the various cult-gods or nature-spirits (demons) with which the imagination of the ancient races who formerly dwelt in the southern parts of western Asia and eastern Europe, with Egypt and Arabia, peopled those lands for many centuries before and subsequent to the Christian era.

The bifurcation fallacy in Biblical studies has a long and storied career. "Either it's history, or it's merely recycled oriental myths; and since the latter are obviously the primitive delusions of inferior races, it simply must be history."

[DCHindley]

Examples:

In the work of Dupuis all primitive religion is connected with a system of astral mythology, and the origin of astral myths is traced to Upper Egypt.

This sounds, essentially, like the ideas propounded by Dorothy Murdock. Search "Dupuis" on her web page http://www.truthbeknown.com .

At the opening of the twentieth century another Oriental "source" was proposed by Mr. J. M. Robertson (Christianity and Mythology, 1900; Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology, 1903, 2d ed., 1912). This author ... traces the portrait of Jesus, as drawn by the synoptic writers, to a syncretism of mythological elements derived primarily, perhaps, from early Hebraic tradition and myth combined (later on) with various pagan myths, European as well as Asiatic, and especially the stories told about the early life of Kṛishṇa and, in some cases, [xvii] those recorded of the Buddha.

I note that comparison of Jesus Christ to the god Krishna of the Hindu scriptures is also a characteristic of Murdock's work. Search for "Robertson" on her web page.

Indeed, the idea contained in the story of Jesus is, in the main, for him [Robertson], very largely a recension of the myth of an old Ephraimitic sun-god "Joshua," which, when historicised, gave rise to a legend regarding a northern Israelite Messiah, Joshua ben Joseph.
...
This last-mentioned view of Christianity and its Founder, again, does not differ very greatly from that of Professor W. B. Smith, of Tulane University, New Orleans, U. S. A., who (Der Vorchristliche Jesus, 1906) derives the "Christ-myth" from certain alleged "Jesus cults," dating from" pre-Christian times. Jesus is, he thinks, the name of an ancient Western Semitic cult-god, and he finds a reference to the doctrines held by the devotees of this deity in Acts 18:25. He also further maintains that "Nazareth" was not in pre-Christian times the name of a village in Galilee (since no such village then existed), but is a corruption of Nazaraios (Ναζαραῖος), meaning "guardian" or "saviour" a word identical in its signification with "Jesus," the name of this ancient cult-god. "Christ," also, in like manner has reference to the same deity, for Χριστός [Christos] is equatable with Χρηστός [Chrēstos], found in the LXX version of Psalm 34: 8.
...
But the hypothesis of the mythical origin and nature of Christianity and the unhistorical character of the Gospel narratives reaches its culminating point in two recent works of Professor Drews, of Karlsruhe, who, abandoning for a time the exposition of philosophy, appears as the strenuous advocate of a mythical Christianity (Die Christusmythe, 1910, English translation The Christ Myth; and The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus,xviii.n1 1912). His method and conclusions may be briefly summarised as follows: From Robertson and W. B. Smith he borrows the general mythical view of the Gospel narratives, and in particular the identification of Jesus with an ancient Hebrew cult-deity, Joshua, and an old Greek divine healer hero, Jason equating Jason = Joshua = Jesus (Joshua forming the intermediate link) as all representing the sun.

This subject has certainly come up in this list! It was recently cited in a message made on this list that Jews expected a messiah named Joshua, but when challenged, went largely unanswered.

Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
Postby neilgodfrey » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:54 pm

stephan happy huller wrote:
When you narrow the field of possibilities I think you are only left with seeing Christianity develop from specifically Jewish or Israelite cultural 'myths.' The idea that the heavenly Lord of Christianity was named 'Jesus' is a big problem. It's not just that Jesus is not a divine name (it couldn't be true that Jews claimed a god named 'Jesus' appeared in Judea), it's also not the name of the awaited messiah so as Tertullian and the Marcionites note - it can't be that a man named Jesus was held to be Christ either.

I'm not so sure. Perhaps this is a problem arising from a limited grasp of what the Judaism of the day involved. The evidence may well be read, with some overgeneralization, as Judaism bifurcating post 70 CE into a Moses (rabbinic) stream and a post-Moses (Joshua) channel. The name of Jesus is quite plausibly the "name above all names" according to a possible interpretation of that hymn, and it does correspond to the name of Jason who was likewise a returnee from the dead. Classicist John Moles has quite a lengthy article addressing the meaning of the name of Jesus in the relevant time perriod: http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews ... he-healer/

Re: Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book
Postby stephan happy huller » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:32 pm
Joshua is not a messianic name. This is explicit in the anti-Marcionite literature. The Jews have never expected the messiah would be named Joshua. It was a typology explicitly denied by the Jews and Marcionites. To develop a mythical story about a man named Jesus who was the messiah is illogical because it wouldn't have been believed. If you were going to pick a name out of a hat - Judas, Shilo, Ephraim, Joseph would make more sense. At some point everyone has to be honest and admit that you just wouldn't make up a story about a man named Jesus who was the messiah. Either the original story was something else (i.e. the Marcionite paradigm) as I contend or the story was about a man named Jesus because it is a development from a historical event. But it would be illogical to assume that someone would have developed a story about a man named Jesus and expect people to accept this Jesus (or Joshua) they had never heard of was the messiah.

I might almost think that Vridar, no slouch by any means, had heard something about northern Israelite expectation of a Messiah, Joshua ben Joseph, from J M Robertson, or "Jesus" being the name of an ancient Western Semitic cult-god from W B Smith, or perhaps more fully digested from the works of Arthur Drews, and felt that it was sufficiently proved that 1st century Judeans (Jews) could expect a messiah named Joshua (Jesus). When Stephan rightly challenged this assumption, I do not recall any proof to the contrary being offered by Vridar or anyone else. Hint: It comes from mythicists ...

Further, from Professor W. B. Smith he [Drews] adopts the theory that the members of these cults had been termed "Nazoraeans" (Nazaraioi). Christianity, he maintains, is primarily and mainly a syncretism of these elements together with (orthodox) Jewish Messianism plus the pagan (Greco-Roman, etc.) idea of a "redeemer-god," who annually "dies" and "rises," and thereby promotes the welfare of mankind.

Search for "Drews" on Murdock's web page.

DCH

[Blood]

One has to ask: "Is the idea expressed a cutting edge new one or something from 19th century?" Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE a lot of 19th and early 20th century scholarship, but I have to agree with Schweitzer who implied that many critics, even the most brilliant, tend to see reflections of themselves in the subjects of their inquiry.

Including Schweitzer.

[DCHindley]

One has to ask: "Is the idea expressed a cutting edge new one or something from 19th century?" Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE a lot of 19th and early 20th century scholarship, but I have to agree with Schweitzer who implied that many critics, even the most brilliant, tend to see reflections of themselves in the subjects of their inquiry.

Including Schweitzer.

Yup, including Schweitzer. That doesn't stop him from pointing out contradictions and illogical conclusions, which I find he was very good at.

DCH

[DCHindley]

Introduction

[xi] The subject of this treatise, "The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels," as it may be termed, is, it should be widely known, nothing more nor less than the theory that our present four canonical Gospels are in no sense whatever what we nowadays mean by the term "historical documents." This is, in truth, a most serious proposition to fling down before the world after close upon nineteen centuries of Christian teaching which has been throughout based upon the contrary affirmation. For, if any such theory be a true one, and can be so established to the satisfaction not only of scholars but to that of the world at large, then the documents referred to must be in effect probably nothing more than a mere congeries of ancient nature-myths, and their Central Figure also can only be an embodiment of one or more [xii] of the various cult-gods or nature-spirits (demons) with which the imagination of the ancient races who formerly dwelt in the southern parts of western Asia and eastern Europe, with Egypt and Arabia, peopled those lands for many centuries before and subsequent to the Christian era.

The bifurcation fallacy in Biblical studies has a long and storied career. "Either it's history, or it's merely recycled oriental myths; and since the latter are obviously the primitive delusions of inferior races, it simply must be history."

Well, my #4 molar has a "bifurcation" and will be extracted shortly ...

FWIW, the mythicists do not deny the "imaginative" nature of myths, but celebrate it as a positive thing. However, Thornburn is not suggesting that the ancients who created myths from natural phenomenon were dolts, but that the mythicists had failed to reasonably show how those myths were transferred and grafted into early Christian theology. Just because something is "in the air" somewhere on the globe at some point in time does not show how it came to be incorporated into a newer form of myth via syncretism. There is a large body of modern literature on Syncretism that I never ever hear cited by anyone.

DCH

[Blood]

These guys were laying the groundwork for what later became better understood as religious archetypes. The reason why Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus are similar is not because one group consciously mimicked the other. They instead speak to the commonality of human desires across many different cultures.

In this regard, the work these early writers did -- though wrong in many of their conclusions -- was quite important; more important than run-of-the-mill apologists like Thorburn.

[maryhelena]

These guys were laying the groundwork for what later became better understood as religious archetypes. The reason why Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus are similar is not because one group consciously mimicked the other. They instead speak to the commonality of human desires across many different cultures.

In this regard, the work these early writers did -- though wrong in many of their conclusions -- was quite important; more important than run-of-the-mill apologists like Thorburn.

Indeed, we all stand on the shoulders of those who paved the intellectual road forward. Of course, mistakes were made. I just love a quote that Daniel Schwartz referenced in his book (Agrippa I).

I am sure that I will be spared the type of criticism that the late A. Momigliano once brought against another young scholar in a related field, namely, that he lacked the courage to be wrong, which is, at times, also the courage to be right.

Intellectual evolution might take wrong turns now and again - but it, somehow, gets back on track and opens up the road forward. However many the errors might be in some mythical interpretations, and understandings, of the gospel story - they really do pale into insignificance compared to the horrors of the errors that are still upheld by many in the literal reading camp.The gross inhumanity of finding salvation value in a human flesh and blood crucifixion - to the nightmare of people being considered goats and burned in eternal fire......give me a mythical interpretation of that gospel story every time....

I can't understand the logic of some historicists who want the cleanly washed up version of the gospel story - and yet seek to judge the ahistoricists/mythicsts position by the dirty laundry in their camp.

[Blood]

The first thing you notice when you read any scholarship on any subject is the lack of acknowledgement that the author's theories could be wrong. That doesn't mean they always think they're right. It's just the nature of the genre to construct the arguments in such a way as to prevent the reader from detecting weakness. But this also gives the impression of the proposed theories being the only correct ones, and any perceptive reader can challenge that confidence most of the time. Hence the ridiculous game, played by people like Thorburn, and continuing to the present day, of apologists "refuting" the alternative theories of Christian origins with endless appeals to the authority of canon.

[DCHindley]

These guys were laying the groundwork for what later became better understood as religious archetypes. The reason why Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus are similar is not because one group consciously mimicked the other. They instead speak to the commonality of human desires across many different cultures.

In this regard, the work these early writers did -- though wrong in many of their conclusions -- was quite important; more important than run-of-the-mill apologists like Thorburn.

Religious archetypes is a concept derived from Jungian psychology. Universal archetypes were assumed by Freke & Gandy in Jesus Mysteries, although I thought they fell far short of proving their case. In psychology, Jungian-style archetypes (evolutionally developed brain circuitry that influences how our brains interpret the input from our senses, exhibited in personal and social behaviors as identifiable patterns, and hence "structural") have not held up very well when tested by researchers.

DCH